is taxing ammo and firearms that possible? i copied this from somewhere and i cant remember where.

Actually, the Attorney General, one Homer S. Cummings, and the FDR administration proposed a sliding transfer tax that was intended to be prohibitory. IIRC, the transfer tax was $5000 on a machinegun, $2000 on a handgun, $1000 on a rifle and $500 on a shotgun. In addition, there would be a tax of $50 on each round of handgun ammo, $20 on each round of rifle ammo, $5 on each shotshell, and $.50 on each round of .22 ammo. Multiply by around $40 for today's dollar values.

All guns had to be registered and no inheritance would be allowed. But NOTE, as Sen. Obama emphasizes, no one would TAKE AWAY any guns. Until you die, then into the furnace went your guns.

When Congress got done in 1934, the bill was watered down to what is essentially the NFA as it exists today as part of GCA '68.

I can only hope that this is just speculation and not a form threat to our 2nd amendment.

Congress can pass ANY law, and, if the SCOTUS doesn't review it, it stands. Why else do you think we have both state and Federal law regulating an area that is now starting to look like what many of us strict constructionists believe is a fundemental right, that the Constitution prohibits regulation of?

There is at least on incorporation case (14th) with regards to the 2A making its way through the system now.

I have been stating for some time my main concern will be an attack on the 2A with the environment used to justify it. I expect to see a "sin tax" added for the "damage" lead ammo has done over the decades.

Congress could pass legislation declaring Ernest Borgnine God and requiring sacrifices in his name and it would stand so long as the SCOTUS does not knock it down.

__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

Lots of ammo taxing schemes running around. As of right now, a lot of them are tied to ammo serialization laws.

Kentucky actually had a serialization law proposed (that died a quick death) that would include a tax of $.05 per round. Not a big deal if you buy a box of 20 rifle rounds. Pretty big deal if you buy a brick of .22lrs.

And, if I'm not mistaken, isn't there an additional tax on outdoor "sporting goods" like ammo, bows, arrows, guns and the like?

While gun lists are full of Nostradamus clones of doom, there have been several analyses that suggest the Dems won't go near passing gun laws due to their experience in 1994.

During Bush's reign - he postured repeatedly about abortion, the flag burning amendment and the like. He said he would sign an AWB - but with all these issues, they let congresspeople rant and squelched the bills.

I might be wrong but Obama wants to control the Congress in 2010 and expand his majority. The one he has now is based on the revulsion against the butt clown governing of the Bush Administration. He won't have that in 2010.

Obama seems to be resisting immediately going after the Bush tax cuts and war crime trials for those POS like Cheney, Rumsefeld and assorted minions. That suggests a considered approach as compared to the hysteria.

Obama is a politician, and, the most important thing to a politician is to stay in office, and, get his paycheck. He'll want a second term, and, judging from his cabinet, we know nothing about this guy. He lied his way into office, as most politicians do, and, now that he is one of the landed gentry, with life long federal benefits, he's appearing to sell out, just like all good politicians do. The country thought they elected change: all they did was elect another Bill Clinton...

The votes are only there if you are counting Republican vs. Democrat. If you count pro-gun voting record vs. anti-gun record vs. no record, the picture is a lot foggier. It isn't necessarily a given that they have the votes.

A second issue is that the bill has to make it out of committee; because they sure don't have the votes to force it to the floor. The committees are controlled by the Democratic leadership.

Historically, the party of the sitting President never does well in the first midterm election. With two exceptions, they have lost seats in Congress every time (Bush in 2002 being one of those exceptions). The Democrats are tantalizingly close to complete control of all three branches of government - just a few votes shy of being able to block filibusters and own the House entirely. So it seems the key issue to me is whether the Democrats want the gold ring or just plan to make the most with the two years they have now.

Both Rahm Emannuel (now Obama Chief of Staff) and Chuck Schumer (Led Democrat Senate Campaign) supported running pro-gun Democrats such as James Webb in order to counter Republican wins in the Appalachia region where Democrats have underperformed in the past. They were willing to let their personal anti-gun sentiments wait so as not to spoil the 2008 election. Will they continue to wait so they can take 2010 as well? I think they will as long as the polling data shows they have a shot. If their popularity dumps though, they may decide to cash out while they are ahead. All of that is a fancy way of saying without the support of Democratic leadership, no AWB makes it to the floor and I am not sure the Democratic leadership is ready to tackle that problem right now.

well with the senate, oval office and supreme courts being in its current, and ever so growing anti-gun democratic position, can only make the average gun owner more conservative and weary of upcoming or current events. i live in Arizona and my front license plate says when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. I am an American. My Right is to defend myself my family and my home. i hope its just speculation......but before that i know i will be prepared.

The votes are only there if you are counting Republican vs. Democrat. If you count pro-gun voting record vs. anti-gun record vs. no record, the picture is a lot foggier. It isn't necessarily a given that they have the votes.

Of course Obama brought on Emmanuel specifically because his specialty is keeping his own party in line. The guy is a Democratic Party hit man whose specialty is keeping those guys with D listed after their names in line with his boss.

Again, guns are not the first priority here. At the same time if they are looking for a quick "feel good" victory to show off in the face of other depressing economic news some sort of "reasonable" gun control "for the children" is entirely possible.

__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.